Fair weather business partners

Looking at how Graham Young’s advertising syndicate partners are behaving (Club Troppo, En Passant and Larvatus Prodeo) I’m reminded of this great performance. Their attitude is that he had it coming – mind you, they took the money and, as far as I can see, intend keeping it.

The usual insightful analysis from Sinclair. Perhaps if you read my piece – the fight for equal love http://enpassant.com.au/?p=9276 – you might get a glimpse of understanding of supporting the oppressed, instead of lying about me taking the money. But given you have spent your whole life defending the oppressors and the exploiting class that is unlikely.

Thanks for the suggestion to read your piece, John and wasting a few minutes of my life that I will never get back.

You hard leftiwngers are truly an awful bunch and I mean in this in the nicest possible way.

You freaking moron, there are gays lynched and left in the town square to rot in various parts of the middle east and you’re peddling swill that gays are being oppressed here because they can’t marry. Seriously how fucked in the head are you peddling shit like that?

The advertising revenue my site earns has collapsed – from a pittance to nothing.

If you didn’t take any money, no problem – sorry, my bad. If you did, make a donation – it’s tax deductible.

Every little bit helps.

I also see this on your blog

Further update: Larvatus Prodeo have now issued a statement distancing themselves from Graham Young, Online Opinion and Christopher Pearson and saying they, like me, reject homophobia and vilification.

Let me get this right, this guy is mouthing off about, workers, gay, lesbian, minority and poodle rights and he worked at the ATO, that fine bastion of protecting civil rights where the taxpayer is seen as owing money (guilty) until totally proven not to (innocent).

I’m not sure that it’s fair to class Troppo with Passant and LP’s response. Poor Ken P, the lawyer that he is, can see both sides of the story. So can I. If all this really boiled down to that Storer guy writing a mild little letter and IBM and ANZ getting pussified as a result, it’s not really anyone to blame for any active malice.

JC – well yes. Except the state doesn’t use the loot to help the ‘oppressed’. In a democracy the median voter gets to determine how the loot gets used, and she (and it is a ‘she’) doesn’t give a toss about the oppressed and workers and crap like that. This is why we’re seeing a massive growth in middle class welfare.

It’s interesting that so many people are offended by the truth. The fact is that homosexual activity is anything but healthy and natural. Certain lgbt’s want their perversion to be called “normal” and “healthy” and they’ve decided the best way to do this is have their “marriages” formally recognised. But even if the law is changed, these “marriages” are anything but healthy and natural. It is, in fact, impossible for these people to be married, despite what any state or federal law may say.

CL – what does that even mean? Why do we care what law-abiding individuals do in the privacy of their own homes? I’ve been called a depraved degenerate pervert all my adult life (thank you again to those concerned) and I’m hetero. The best argument I’ve seen on this is here.

If marriage is so socially beneficial, why not encourage as many to join it as possible? The choice is between excluding gay people from the foundation of strong families or inviting them in.

Come on CL. Let’s be pretty up front, lots of hetros do exactly what gays do in bed for the most part without going into specifics.

What I can’t believe is the silliness of a large part of the gay community (though certainly not all) agitating for gay marriage.

Why on freaking earth would anyone willingly want to be governed by the family court law when the risk of exit is at the rate of 50% in hetro marriages? And with men being men the risk rate of (lets call it) systemic failure would be higher as they have a propensity to score more partners or go for more sexual partners with the likely possibility of seeing a higher rate of divorce.

This is the stupidest freaking demand I’ve ever seen any group make. Why on earth would well off gays want to be governed by exist laws that are basically a redistributionist racket.

In fact no hetro male should even consider the idea of marriage any longer. Not for a minute.

And CL, marriage these days is so fucked up by fembot inspired statist intervention that it has lost all meaning and in fact has become a way to oppress males… and I’m using the term “oppression” here in the true sense of the word.

A true Christian marriage is a marriage in a church without any intervention by the state and in fact if Christians were smart about it they would be agitating and pushing for the deconstruction of marriage as far away from the state as possible.

Conservatives are leading young men along the wrong path by advocating marriage. It’s wrong to do so and in certain ways cruel. They should be telling young men NOT to get married and run a mile from it.

Ans if there are any gays reading this. Don’t whatever you do push for guy marriage. In fact count yourselves freaking lucky that you’re not as the horror stories of family courts taking an axe to the wealth and ownership from one party to another in divorce is horrendous.

Count yourselves as the lucky and push hard against the state recognizing gay marriage because if it comes about you risk the potential of losing a fair portion of your net worth.

Get “married” privately in a private ceremony if you so choose and have a private contract drawn up that is mutually agreed to.

But please for your own sakes listen to the oppressed and don’t under any circumstances support gay marriage.

Note: I’m happily married by only ascribe luck to that rather than design as I was/am in a high risk group for divorce and if I had my time again and knew the things I do now, I would never have married and in fact ran a mile for that appalling institution.

Note: I’m happily married by only ascribe luck to that rather than design as I was/am in a high risk group for divorce and if I had my time again and knew the things I do now, I would never have married and in fact ran a mile for that appalling institution.

As far as I can see, marriage is only dangerous for those planning on divorcing. I don’t see a single negative to it.

As far as I can see, marriage is only dangerous for those planning on divorcing. I don’t see a single negative to it.

Okay:

How do you know you will not be in the 50% failure rate.

Then if you’re in the 50% failure rate you can lose up to 80% of your net worth.

The pay out ratio on this trade is only one Homer would consciously do.

50% of losing 80% is perhaps the worst odds that could ever be constructed.

example:

50% * $100,000 * 20% = $10,000 payout ratio.

You stand to lose (if you have $100,000 net worth) $90,000 or make $10,000.

It, you can’t say that at the outset you “know” the marriage will work because you really freaking well don’t and you have to go with the population odds which is 50% systemic failure. You then have the potential of being fleeced for the rest of you adult life.

It’s not just a “single” negative. It’s more like no positive. Fembotism turning the state on its side has destroyed the potential of marriage for males.

There was never any benefit to men from getting married. It’s a construct designed to help beta males by ensuring that Alpha Males can’t monopolise all the women in their community.

I think this has it roughly backward – from what I’ve seen it’s usually women who insist on marriage, not the other way around. Having a virtual slave around who will provide everything and then die 8 years earlier, leaving you all the assets, was traditionally not such a bad deal for women. I think most women realise by their 30s that this is still a decent set up.

As for men – you are soon enough delivered a couple of impressionable young things who practically worship the ground you walk on, and will believe practically everything you say. You could just about start your own cult.

Sinkers, early: “..All Marxists should work at the tax office”.
Many would be happy with sh-t kicker employ in these times of post 2007 “market failure” and economic straightening, let alone some thing as cushy as the public service.
Echoes Passant, thinks…

It’s been a while since I’ve read more pompous and self righteous prose than that recently addressed via email by Mark Banisch(Lavartus Prodeo) and Ken Parish (Club Troppo) to the embattled Graham Young at On Line Opinion.

The former can be seen here, the latter at Club Troppo.

I note that one of their major grievances appears to be that this affair has become public. Both blogs have cut Young loose since Christopher Pearson revealed the incipient scandal in the Australian last weekend.

So why do Lavartus Prodeo and Club Troppo object to what is most decidedly a matter of public interest, being put before the public?

Using phrases that are painfully typical of all attempts at middle class repression, they conclude that none of it is in the public interest, even though it raises questions of freedom of speech, religious freedom of speech, moderating across the board, the right to publish opposing opinions, corporate censorship, and much more.

Why on earth would these two blogs seek to keep these matters out of the public domain, and to silence public discussion?

Indeed, so strongly do they or their supporters feel that they have even attacked a comment I left at the Drum, and the Drum itself for publishing my comment.

What? Nobody is allowed to disagree, even on the ABC site, with these self proclaimed authority figures?

Thanks for telling the public it’s none of our concern, chaps. The public really loves people like you telling us what is and isn’t in our interests.

As my headline implies, it is precisely when eruptions such as these occur that an opportunity for public discussion about important matters presents itself.

There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in, chaps. That’s how the light gets in.

How sad that Banisch and Parish have attempted to smother public debate, and instead avail themselves of the opportunity to strut the high moral ground.

And how moral is it to dump a colleague at the first sign of trouble? Young has never had complaints such as these made against him before in years of publishing a vast array of opinion.

Jennifer Wilson, its complex.
Whilst enjoying the hospitality of a site I’ve avoided in the past- this one- it came back to me that some at LP have their own suites of personal issues, involving illness and disability, as well as the gender stuff and personal rejection. That’s apart the intellectual or ideological ones they contest with folk like the people here. Yet they are bright people, academics on the whole and that magnifies their sense of alienation for them, perhaps.
I think the root movement is defensive, there are certain issues they’ll respond to in light of their own situation in society and personal circumstancesas additional to the social issue that bother them. Their core constituency is people a bit like themselves, outsiders, often gifted ones. Their stance is “activist”. And they react fiercely in defence of those they feel responsible for and their site as a location for these. It’s their great strength and their great weakness.
A bit like Young, who protects his slightly older and more staid constituency, or Sinclair Davidson here with his flock of sceptics and contrarians, who peform the same function of scrutiny for the left as the left does as to their opposite theories.
The trouble with blogging is, its been round for a few years and begun to become a bit tribal and predictable. I wouldn’t have contemplated leaving my comfort zone to visit here, but for the current upheavel which itself is driven also by unconsidered demographic and techno changes that alter the nature of blogging itself and create unexpected tensions.
Basically, I’d suggest that people “get out and about” a bit more, because current affairs blogsites are becoming inbred and tribal rather than gathering places for conversations in good nature and faith between variant viewpoints and different sets of people, which was the original and better idea.

Blogs were happy until the second year of Rudd’s rule. I swear by it. At this time, inter blog cheerfulness simply went tits up.

I can’t explain it, since the right weren’t rabidly anti Rudd off the bat and the things the left said about Howard previously were very scornful.

Not that we care as libertarians. They were both bastard waif sons of joachim of fiore.

Yeah but seriously until then many of us would lob over to LP, Kwiggen, Troppo or even bloody left writes! At the time some of the more acerbic comments against us actually came from Blair’s comments etc.

Yes, Ithink 2007 was watershed. But now we know there are no instant solutions and labor is as troubled in a changing world as to relevance as its opponents.
Technology has ensured that we’ve moved from a national project to globalisation and the current process is of ongoing realignment for most of us. The future is as unclear as it ever, that’s life.

that some at LP have their own suites of personal issues, involving illness and disability,

I don’t think many folks recognize the true – considerable – extent of this fact and the effect it has the suspicion, paranoia, and hyper-vigilance for which LP has become infamous.

Comments are closed.

Liberty Quote

The Princeton sociologists Paul Sniderman and Louk Hagendoorn found that the Dutch favoured tolerance and opposed multiculturalism. When asked what the difference was, they replied that tolerance ignores differences; multiculturalism makes an issue of them at every point.